First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Food stamps could not be used on soda and candy back in 1969. Only staple foods. Don’t know when or why that changed.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Yeah. That’s it. You're a race baiting ignoramus.

You're a racist POS.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

More coming, sorry your bum ass can’t use my tax money on Doritos and Skittles anymore, crackhead

Fk boy, you don't have any money to use. Go hit that meth and STFU.

 

[log cabin republican]

Bureaucracies are far more susceptible to corruption than individuals, because there is no accountability in a bureaucracy.

. . . individuals OTH? Are monitored and held to account if there is fraud, abuse, or waste. Bureaucracies are not.

And yet, people somehow think that a person who takes gov employment becomes holier-than-thou. Just because he works in gov.

 

[log cabin republican]

View attachment 1097092

Peachy. Sounds legit.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And none of those 8 men are taking anything away from that single mom. In fact, those 8 men have created hundreds of thousands of jobs and have caused the tax base to grow dramatically.

They have given nothing of their incredible wealth.

Look up "empathy," please, and think. Don't answer. Just think.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

And yet, people somehow think that a person who takes gov employment becomes holier-than-thou. Just because he works in gov.

Who does?

 

[Mac-7]

Who does?

You?

 

[log cabin republican]

Who does?

You, Cherry Pie

You?

/thread

 

[Sunsettommy]

LOL! I'll bite:

Paternalistic actions implemented against a class of people solely because of their financial status.
It takes a little piece of the poor person's freedom away..and creates a subtle social difference.

I remember never taking free lunches as a kid..because of the stigma of handing in a specially colored ticket that designated me as being one of the poor kids...so perhaps I take it personally.

Choice is freedom...and it is not up to the Govt. to police people's food purchases.

The money came from Taxpayers who would think a good use of the donated money for the poor is on good common-sense grounds.

I don't give cash to poor looking people on street corners because they might use it for alcohol or drugs, thus I buy them a hamburger instead and give it to someone with the receipt to show I just bought it, that is how I view good way to give my money to others.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You?

I am not in government, and when I was in the infantry, I told maybe thirty people what to do. I was not holier than thou about it.

 

[log cabin republican]

I am not in government, and when I was in the infantry, I told maybe thirty people what to do. I was not holier than thou about it.

Oh, you're the guy who worked for the big general, right Cherry Pie?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh, you're the guy who worked for the big general, right Cherry Pie?

Oh, I get you now. You are goofier than daveman if you believe that.

 

[struth]

It was probably against black folks

Your party oppressive ways doesn’t care they hate well spoken blacks

 

[MarathonMike]

Fk boy, you don't have any money to use. Go hit that meth and STFU.

I see this thread has gone just where IM2/Superbad like it. Into the Race hatred gutter.

 

[struth]

I see this thread has gone just where IM2/Superbad like it. Into the Race hatred gutter.

IM2 is a white guy that pretends to be black

 

[Tyrion234]

Fk boy, you don't have any money to use. Go hit that meth and STFU.

Hey man, no bad blood, I hope you and Lawuichsgtndbahdvjchs hit it off real good in the food shelf line.

 

[toobfreak]

Taking my money by threat of armed force does not make it the gov'ts money. It makes it theft by taking.
If someone robs a bank, does that money now become the legal robbers money? No.

Are you really comparing paying taxes to the Treasury the same as a bank robber?

 

[OldFlame]

The reality is that once people are in need of government services, rather than help them get back on their feet, the government simply drives most people downward and forces them to stay on assistance. For one thing, because there is a wide gap between where people NEED help to pull themselves back up and where they begin QUALIFYING for said help, so what happens is that people with problems needing help just keep falling until they fall below the point of recovery until they are so utterly in need of help that they become permanently in need of those services.

That is problem #1 in how the government operates. Government pulls people into poverty then punishes them for trying to get out, so then end up with all these people forever in need of assistance. The irony is that the government limits services because it has so many people on said programs which it drives there, but if they just gave a little more services and help intelligently, they would have far less in need. But then, there never was anything intelligent about government.


WHAT POOR DECISIONS?! Stop with the bullshit. I have already been over this several times. I am talking about people in need through no fault of their own likely who will never be able to get back off assistance, but as to people making "poor decisions," it would still be better to raise these people up and get them on their feet and off welfare than to institutionalize them for life as government does. Government has utterly failed to take people with "bad decisions" and educate them, train them or whatever it takes to get them back OFF assistance, and this ultimately ends up costing all of us FAR MORE money that if we really gave those people the real help they need.

What percentage of those on assistance are there because of 'no fault of their own'? I'd bet that 90% plus of it is due to drug abuse and addiction.

 

[OldFlame]

WRONG. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not going to keep repeating myself if you are incapable of understanding the problem.

Explain how the government keeps someone on assistance for life?